from the local-man-arrested-for-making-streets-safer dept

A cop couldn't handle someone diverting his revenue stream. So he decided to do something about it. That "something" was getting sued for civil rights violations. How this will improve revenue generation remains to be seen, but for now one officer of the Stamford, Connecticut police department will need to lawyer up. (via Courthouse News Service)

The plaintiff, Michael Friend, happened to notice a bunch of police officers issuing tickets to drivers for distracted driving. One officer, Richard Gasparino, was hiding behind a telephone pole on the other side of the street looking for drivers using their cellphones and relaying his suspicions to officers further down the road.

Friend moved south of the Stamford PD sting operation and held up a handwritten sign reading "Cops Ahead." This didn't sit well with Officer Gasparino, who swiftly decided he'd like to be sued by Friend and his representation. He began his tour of culpability with the following hilarious assertion. From the lawsuit [PDF]:

[T]he defendant approached Mr. Friend and snatched the sign from him.

Mr. Friend began video recording the defendant with his phone, as he thought the defendant was behaving illegally.

The defendant told Mr. Friend that he was “interfering with our police investigation” and told Friend to leave the spot where he was standing.

Calling this little operation an "investigation" really stretches the meaning of the word. There's literally zero investigating going on. A static speed camera does just as much investigating.

From there, things got worse/stupider/more unconstitutional. Friend walked away from this, headed another block south, and made a bigger sign. Thirty minutes later, Officer Gasparino came back for more. Friend again took out his phone and began recording.

[T]he defendant snatched Mr. Friend’s phone and stopped Friend from recording because he claimed to want to “protect [him]self from any false claims of physical abuse.”

Um. What? One would think a recording would be the best evidence to use against "false claims of physical abuse." I guess recordings made by citizens don't count. Officer Gasparino took the phone in Friend's hand as well as one he was carrying in his pocket. This sounds exactly like an unjustified search and seizure -- one that's at least partially captured on phone tape.

Seeing that his bogus claim of investigation interference was having zero effect on Friend's sign-making, Gasparino upped the ante by arresting Friend for interfering with the so-called "investigation." Friend was taken to the station by another officer, who helpfully explained why Gasparino was so upset with Friend and his signs.

On the ride to the police station, [Officer] Deems told Mr. Friend that he attracted police attention because he was “interfering with our livelihood.”

Deems explained to Mr. Friend that the cellphone sting was operated as an overtime assignment, funded by a federal grant which would require the Stamford police to issue a certain number of tickets in order for the grant to be renewed.

By warning motorists, Deems claimed, Mr. Friend was decreasing the number of tickets that the Stamford employees could issue, and therefore decreasing their chances of earning overtime on a cellphone sting grant in the future.

Seems like Officer Gasparino should have sued Friend for tortious interference rather than trash his signs, steal his phones, and book him on such a transparently bogus charge. Gasparino reiterated his belief that Friend's actions were illegal interference with a business model, noting that officers were not "observing as many violations as they should be," thanks to Friend's "Cops Ahead" signs.

And because he's a complete dick, Officer Gasparino set Friend's bail at $25,000… for a misdemeanor interference charge. Friend remained in jail until 1:30 the next morning. He was released by the bail commissioner who immediately set Friend's bail to $0.

But that didn't stop the financial pain for Friend. He had to purchase a new phone later that day because his other phones were still being held by the Stamford PD.

Unbelievably, it took prosecutors to set this straight, during which the prosecution took a shot at Officer Gasparino's "but muh revenue" assertions.

[W]hen Mr. Friend’s case was called, the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi and explained to the court that Mr. Friend’s signs “actually . . . help[ed] the police do a better job than they anticipated because when [drivers] saw the signs, they got off their cell phones.”

This is a master class on how to get sued, taught by Professor Gasparino. The taking of Friend's signs raise both First and Fourth Amendment concerns. There's the "shut up" part of it and the taking of someone's property without cause, even if said property was nothing more than cardboard.

Then there's the seizure of Friend's phones -- both done without cause. Even if the interference charge were credible (it isn't), there's simply no reason to believe the phones contained evidence of this crime. Any recordings that may have supported Gasparino's assertions were ended by Gasparino himself before they could have captured any "obstructing."

And finally, there's the seizure of Friend himself. This might be the most difficult count to secure a win on, considering cops are given a whole lot of leeway to arrest people for crimes both real and imagined. The imagined ones tend to be tossed by prosecutors, but the courts have consistently held officers need only believe a law was violated to effect an arrest.

None of this looks good for Officer Gasparino. These allegations lay out a sadly-credible story of a cop using his power to harm someone who made his life a tiny bit more difficult. Gasparino twice overstepped his Constitutional bounds and followed it up by making sure Friend couldn't just walk away from the stupidity by swinging a $25k bail hammer at him. This is adding injury to injury -- not exactly a great move when you might find yourself being held legally responsible for the injury pile-on.

from the you've-got-a-bit-of-a-problem-here dept

It only took a few years, but law enforcement finally appears to be getting wise to the phenomenon of SIM hijacking, which lets a hacker hijack your phone number, then take control of your personal accounts. As we've been noting, the practice has heated up over the last few years, with countless wireless customers saying their entire identities were stolen after thieves ported their phone number to another carrier, then took over their private data. Sometimes this involves selling valuable Instagram account names for bitcoin; other times it involves clearing out the target's banking or cryptocurrency accounts.

"Investigators accuse Ortiz of being a prolific SIM hijacker who mainly targeted victims to steal their cryptocurrency but also to take over their social media accounts with the goal of selling them for Bitcoin. According to the investigators, as well as people in the SIM swapping community, Ortiz was a member of OGUSERS, a website where members trade valuable Instagram or Twitter accounts."

In one of at least three attacks that happened during Consensus, Ortiz allegedly stole more than $1.5 million from a cryptocurrency entrepreneur, including nearly $1 million that he had crowdfunded in an ICO."

SIM hijacking has been making headlines for the better part of the last year, so it's nice to see law enforcement finally paying attention. What still isn't getting enough attention is the fact that these hackers are increasingly getting help from employees inside of major wireless carriers like T-Mobile. As security researcher Brian Krebs has been noting, wireless carrier employees can often be duped into conducting a SIM swap, allowing the hackers to steal another users' identity. Often hackers will go store to store until they've found an employee that's gullible enough or open to financial compensation to do it:

"A SIM swap is a legitimate process by which a customer can request that a new SIM card (the tiny, removable chip in a mobile device that allows it to connect to the provider’s network) be added to the account. Customers can request a SIM swap when their existing SIM card has been damaged, or when they are switching to a different phone that requires a SIM card of another size.

However, thieves and other ne’er-do-wells can abuse this process by posing as a targeted mobile customer or technician and tricking employees at the mobile provider into swapping in a new SIM card for that customer on a device that they control. If successful, the SIM swap accomplishes more or less the same result as a number port out (at least in the short term) — effectively giving the attackers access to any text messages or phone calls that are sent to the target’s mobile account."

And while some store employees have been duped, others are cooperating willingly with the hackers.

Reports over at Motherboard have highlighted how some employees are taking cash payments in exchange for private consumer data routinely only made available to carrier insiders. And despite this getting ample press (over the last month or two specifically), journalist Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai has been pointing out that T-Mobile doesn't appear to want to much talk about it. For context, this is a screenshot taken of T-Mobile's internal systems, either by an employee being paid to participate in the SIM hijacking, or by a hacker that still has access to T-Mobile's private internal systems:

There are systems in place that are supposed to prevent you from having your number ported out without your permission. For example, T-Mobile users can call 611 from their cellphone (or 1-800-937-8997) and tell a support staffer that they want to create a “port validation” passcode to prevent unauthorized number ports. But despite some ongoing lawsuits over this internal security and privacy problem at T-Mobile, it's still pretty clear the company isn't doing enough to protect its customers, in stark contrast to the ultra-consumer-friendly branding schtick the "uncarrier" has been cashing in on for years.

from the just-one-guy dept

In our ongoing coverage of Denuvo, the DRM once thought unbeatable that since has been very much beaten in record timelines, one internet handle wove a common weave through most of those stories: Voksi. Voksi, a singular human being, had done much of the work that had brought Denuvo to its knees. In fact, we recently wrote a post about how illuminating it should be when corporate DRM makers with the kind of financial backing of Denuvo could be brought down essentially by one guy with a grudge. The lesson there was if that was the state of things, it was a clear sign that Denuvo's entire business was on shaky, unsustainable grounds.

Denuvo appears to have taken the opposite lesson instead, believing apparently that this one grudge-haver was something of a single point of failure in the anti-Denuvo realm. To that end, Denuvo has recently, and quite gleefully, announced that it worked with Bulgarian police forces to arrest Voksi and seize his equipment.

Denuvo said that Voksi’s arrest came about through the dual efforts of Denuvo parent company Irdeto and the Bulgarian Cybercrime Unit. “The swift action of the Bulgarian police on this matter shows the power of collaboration between law enforcement and technology providers and that piracy is a serious offence that will be acted upon,” said Irdeto VP of cybersecurity services Mark Mulready.

Denuvo’s statement also included a quote from the Bulgarian Cybercrime Unit, which said: “We can confirm that a 21-year-old man was arrested on Tuesday on suspicion of offenses related to cybercrime and that computing equipment was confiscated. Our investigations are ongoing.”

Voksi himself announced his arrest on Reddit.

In a post today on CrackWatch, a subreddit dedicated to removing DRM and other copy protection software from games, Voksi explained the sudden outage of the website of his hacker group, REVOLT. Yesterday, he got arrested, and the police raided his house.

“It finally happened,” Voksi wrote. “I can’t say it wasn’t expected. Denuvo filed a case against me to the Bulgarian authorities. Police came yesterday and took the server PC and my personal PC. I had to go to the police afterwards and explain myself.”

It seems likely that the folks in Denuvos executive offices are popping champaigne bottles. They shouldn't be. Sure, the company certainly can go after this one lone hacker with a grudge against its software. The real question is whether this will solve Denuvo's problems. It won't. Not by a long shot.

The reason for that is first and foremost that Voksi has been quite good at communicating with the public as to his motivations, and their are something akin to internet populism.

Voksi declined to reply when reached for comment by Kotaku, but on Reddit he lamented that this Denuvo-cracking days are almost certainly behind him. “Sadly, I won’t be able to do what I did anymore,” he said. “I did what I did for you guys and of course because bloated software in our games shouldn’t be allowed at all. Maybe someone else can continue my fight.”

If that reads like the statement of a martyr, it's because that is exactly what Denuvo has created in Voksi. Does anyone really doubt that others will take up his efforts? And in more numbers than when it was just one lone guy with a grudge? Who out there wants to predict that, on the long timeline, the forthcoming headlines will now be all about how Denuvo iterations are secure and impenetrable once more?

In a world where one guy caused all this chaos that led to his arrest, it should be obvious that any such prediction would be laughable. So what has Denuvo achieved in any of this? Anything at all?

from the bad-morning dept

Like many people today, I have a decent amount of experience using Facebook's language translations. With Geigners the world over, including an eyebrow-raising number of them in South America, I've found the translations to be a useful if imperfect way for me to interact with distant family members that reside in countries and continents far from the States. Imperfect is a key word there, however, as some of the garbled nonsense that results from translations can range from somewhat funny to downright perplexing. It goes without saying that relying on a website's translation alone to interpret someone writing in a different language is a harrowing experience fraught with error.

A smiling Palestinian construction worker posted a photo of himself leaning against a bulldozer and holding a cup of coffee and a cigarette. He posted the photo on Facebook along with “good morning” in Arabic.

To be clear, it took a lot of unhappy coincidences to get us to this story occurring in the first place. To start, the Arabic language differences between the two phrases mostly amounts to the difference of a single Arabic letter. Add to it that the man's Facebook post showed him in front of a bulldozer which has in the past been utilized as a weapon to attack Israeli people and buildings and you can start to see how the warning bells for Israeli Police had begun to sound. Now mix in that this Palestinian man was on the job constructing the Beitar Illit Israeli settlement, which itself has been a source of controversy in the past, and you might be tempted to forgive the Israeli police for briefly detaining this Palestinian man.

Except that pretty much every Arabic speaker that has taken an even cursory glance at the post immediately identified the translation error.

Haaretz explained, “Arabic speakers explained that English transliteration used by Facebook is not an actual word in Arabic but could look like the verb ‘to hurt’ — even though any Arabic speaker could clearly see the transliteration did not match the translation.”

Anyone who might want to suggest that the Israeli Police have no access to Arabic speakers they could have run this past does so at the risk of their own credibility. Put more frankly, relying on a Facebook translation to arrest a man who was in fact doing nothing more than being blandly amiable is pretty ridiculous. Given the reputation of Israel's security services, I would have expected better.

from the words-are-like-moats-or-barricades-or-something dept

A case involving a bogus arrest stemming from a citizen's attempt to record officers has resulted in the denial of qualified immunity to the officers involved. The Eighth Circuit Appeals Court upheld the lower court's decision on both First and Fourth Amendment issues.

Plaintiff Brian Hoyland was awakened by the sound of police activity in his front yard. Opening his door, he found officers trying to arrest his wife, who was the passenger in a car suspected of being involved in reported drag racing. This is what Hoyland did from 30-40 feet away, ultimately resulting in him being arrested for obstruction. From the opinion [PDF]:

Out of concern for their safety, Hoyland moved his children to the back of the house and retrieved a cell phone to record the incident outside. He intended to remain inside but changed his mind when he believed he heard the officers yell “shoot” or “shooting.” He proceeded to switch the porch light on, open his front door, and hold his phone, which was recording, out in front of him.

And this is the reaction he got:

Within seconds, an officer shouted, “Drop the camera!” McMenomy yelled at Hoyland to go back inside the house. Hoyland remained where he stood and began screaming at the officers. He shouted, “You are in my yard!” and “What is this, a DWI stop, and you guys are doing this? Are you kidding me?” Hoyland also yelled that his wife was handicapped and demanded that the officers do their jobs “the right way.” McMenomy again ordered Hoyland to “stay inside.” Immediately following this command, with Hoyland remaining in the doorway, “the arrest decision was made” by McMenomy who shouted “you are under arrest,” and ordered Hoyland to raise his hands. About thirty seconds of time elapsed between Hoyland’s emergence from his house into the doorway and McMenomy’s pronouncement that he was under arrest. Hoyland did not resist, raised his hands and laid down on the ground, following the instructions given by the officers. He was taken into custody by McMenomy and Cho without incident.

Since the confrontation was recorded, there is little room for variances between Hoyland and the officers' testimony. As the court sees it, there is no question Hoyland did nothing even remotely approaching "obstruction."

Throughout this encounter, Hoyland never left the area around his front door, failing to ever come closer than 30-40 feet from the officers. He never told his wife or Illetschko to disobey the officers’ commands. He never ran away or resisted the officers as he himself was arrested. Finally, he never physically intervened, and never attempted to physically intervene, in the arrest of anyone.

The local prosecutor found the charge baseless. The prosecutor stated it was clear Hoyland came out to inform officers of his wife's disability while recording the event. At best, Hoyland's actions were nothing more than a "fleeting interruption." The Appeals Court comes to the same conclusion.

Having failed with the "it was obstruction" argument, the officers attempted to portray Holyand's arrest as a necessity for officer safety. The court finds this no more convincing.

Any fear of danger the officers felt due to Hoyland’s presence cannot justify an arrest for obstruction. McMenomy asserts that his mind raced in fear of an ambush when Hoyland emerged from the house. This fear, according to the officers, made Hoyland’s arrest reasonable after he refused to go back inside his home. But the officers are mistaken. However reasonable the command for Hoyland to go back inside may have been, his refusal to do so did not constitute obstruction. As Minnesota law makes abundantly clear, obstruction must be either physical obstruction or verbal conduct, such as fighting words, that has the effect of physically obstructing officers in the performance of their duties. Nowhere in Minnesota law does mere physical presence at a distance constitute obstruction. So arresting Hoyland for obstruction due to his continued presence in his doorway was unreasonable under state law.

Even when we consider his verbal conduct, no reasonable officer could construe his shouting as “physically obstructing or interfering” in the officers’ performance of their duties. See Krawsky, 426 N.W.2d at 877. Admittedly, he was shouting criticisms at the officers. But “[i]n a democracy, public officials have no general privilege to avoid publicity and embarrassment by preventing public scrutiny of their actions.” See Walker v. City of Pine Bluff, 414 F.3d 989, 992 (8th Cir. 2005). And none of Hoyland’s comments could be reasonably interpreted as rising above scrutiny to create a threat or a danger to police or to constitute obstruction.

This allows Hoyland to continue pursuing his Fourth Amendment claim. The court moves on to the First Amendment. Again, the officers argued there was no stifling of Hoyland's First Amendment rights because a) he was obstructing officers, and b) even if he wasn't, he had no Constitutional right to record a traffic stop. The court spends barely any time discussing the officers' obstruction bullshit. Instead, it concentrates on the officers' misguided assertions, which are backed by a previous court decision that's not nearly as helpful as the officers believe it is.

[T]he officers argue that, under Colten v. Kentucky, Hoyland “had no constitutional right to observe a [felony traffic stop] or to engage the [arresting] officer[s] in conversation at that time.”

[...]

But the officers’ reliance on Colten is misplaced for three reasons. First, the location of the traffic stop in Colten—a busy highway—implicated important concerns of public safety. Here, the arrest took place in a residential area with no other vehicles or persons around. And Hoyland was not standing on the side of a highway observing a traffic stop, but rather standing in the doorway of his own home trying to tell the officers that his wife was handicapped…

Here, Hoyland is not challenging the constitutionality of a statute; he is bringing a § 1983 claim against the officers for retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. Colten, on the other hand, was simply “refusing to move on after being directed to do so . . . without more.”

[L]ater Supreme Court cases make it clear that the First Amendment protects verbal criticism directed at police officers. See, e.g., Hill, 482 U.S. at 461. “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principle characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” Id. at 462-63. Thus Hoyland’s communications were protected activity.

The court goes on to point out Hoyland has a possibly legitimate argument the arrest was made to prevent him from exercising his First Amendment rights.

McMenomy’s deposition testimony clearly shows that the arrest decision was not made after Hoyland had ignored the initial order to go back inside. It was only after Hoyland had stood in the doorway shouting criticisms and messages about his wife’s physical disability that the arrest decision was made… The arrest decision was not made when Hoyland first disobeyed an order, but only after he had begun exercising his First Amendment rights.

Because the charge was bogus and the officers had no probable cause for Hoyland's arrest, both his Constitutional claims will have to be faced by the government defendants. As the court concludes, immunity is a privilege, not a right, and should be treated as such by courts and those seeking to avail themselves of it.

Police officers have a tough job. They must confront dangerous situations and make difficult decisions in short time frames. This is why we offer the protection of qualified immunity—to insulate officers from the constant threat of litigation while serving and safeguarding their fellow citizens. But to receive that protection, we must find as a matter of law that the officers acted within the confines of the Constitution. They must avoid arresting persons without at least arguable probable cause. They must not take adverse actions against persons for exercising their First Amendment rights. Looking at the facts of this case, we cannot hold as a matter of law that the officers acted constitutionally.

The court doesn't go so far as to establish a right to record police, but it does offer up enough precedential cases to make any arguments to the contrary unlikely to find sympathy with the judges. As for Hoyland, he at least has a chance to make his case at the lower level and receive some sort of compensation for an interaction with officers that began with them ordering him to stop filming and ended in a bogus arrest.

from the that's-just-mean dept

For some reason, this keeps happening and I will never understand why. For years, we have covered incidents where security researchers benignly report security flaws in the technology used by companies and governments, doing what can be characterized as a service to both the public and those entities providing the flawed tools, only to find themselves threatened, bullied, detained, or otherwise dicked with as a result. It's an incredibly frustrating trend to witness, with law enforcement groups and companies that should want to know about these flaws instead shooting the messenger in what tends to look like a fit of embarrassment.

The young man discovered that he could access BKK's website, press F12 to enter the browser's developer tools mode, and modify the page's source code to alter a ticket's price. Because there was no client or server-side validation put in place, the BKK system accepted the operation and issued a ticket at a smaller price. As a demo, the young man says he bought a ticket initially priced at 9459 Hungarian forints ($35) for 50 Hungarian forints (20 US cents).

The teenager — who didn't want his name revealed — reported the issue to BKK, but the organization chose to contact the police and file a complaint, accusing the young man of hacking their systems. Police arrested the teenager in the middle of the night shortly after, even if the young man didn't live in Budapest, nor did he ever use the fraudulently obtained ticket.

Teenager discovers flaw, reports it directly to the group affected by that flaw, and subsequently gets arrested? And not only that, actually, as the BKK then held a press conference essentially to brag about the arrest before stomping its metaphorical feet and declaring that its systems were now "secure." Shortly after the press conference, an outraged internet did its thing and all of the sudden all kinds of security flaws in BKK sites began to emerge from Twitter users. On top of that, the IT company BKK contracted to put all of this "security" in place had itself sponsored "ethical hacking" contests in the past. If there is a more ethical version of hacking than finding exploits in public systems and reporting them immediately, I'm having trouble thinking of what that could possibly be.

Meanwhile, the Hungarian public got immediately pissed.

In the meantime, tens of thousands of Hungarians have shown their solidarity and support for the teenager by going on Facebook and leaving one-star reviews on BKK's page. While initially, reviews came from Hungarians, international users started leaving their own thoughts on BKK's page after the incident become a trending topic on Reddit.

"You should partner with better companies managing the security and reliability of your online purchase systems! Shame on you BKK!," said one user.

I would say this was something of a Streisand Effect except that much of it was kicked off by BKK's boasting press conference, so unless it is attempting to Streisand itself, this is more along the lines of an agency simply being as dickish as it possibly could after receiving what should have been deemed a gift from a security researcher and now getting slapped around publicly for it. All, mind you, while new security exploits are exposed by an angry internet.

from the tough-on-(moon-related)-crime dept

The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has affirmed a lower court's stripping of a federal officer's qualified immunity in a… moon rock sting case. This is a thing. Relatives and friends of NASA personnel have received what they believe are gifts from them -- items containing moon rock pieces, or heat shield fragments, or whatever. The problem here is the government believes it owns anything related to its exploration missions.

[I]f you have or even claim to have any lunar material, or some other piece of Apollo memorabilia, the government is quite likely to treat you as a criminal if it finds out—even if, as in this case, it had no proof at all that the suspect got it illegally (or even that it was what she claimed).

The "she" here is Joann Davis, whose late husband worked on the Apollo program. He was given two Apollo souvenirs by Neil Armstrong -- paperweights containing pieces of a moon rock and a heat shield, respectively. Davis was looking to sell the items to a collector to defray her son's medical expenses. She asked NASA for assistance, which turned out to be a mistake. NASA sent the feds after her.

Davis may have told the government what she was up to, but the government didn't return the favor. Instead, it decided to engage in sting operation, because that's obviously the best way to deal with a 74-year-old woman trying to pay medical expenses -- and who had made the government fully aware of her NASA-related items and her planned sale of them.

"Jeff," the government's undercover man posing as an interested buyer, met with Davis at a Denny's. Outside were six armed federal agents. The only person with Davis was her 70-year-old friend, Paul Cilley. From the opinion [PDF]:

Once Davis, Cilley, and “Jeff” were seated in a booth inside the restaurant and exchanged pleasantries, Davis placed the paperweights on the table. “Jeff” said he thought the heat shield was worth about $2,000. Shortly thereafter, Conley announced himself as a “special agent,” and another officer’s hand reached over Davis, grabbed her hand, and took the moon rock paperweight. Simultaneously, a different officer grabbed Cilley by the back of the neck and restrained him by holding his arm behind his back in a bent-over position. Then, an officer grabbed Davis by the arm, pulling her from the booth. At this time, Davis claims that she felt like she was beginning to lose control of her bladder. One of the officers took her purse. Both Cilley and Davis were compliant. Four officers escorted them to the restaurant parking lot for questioning after patting them down to ensure that neither was armed.

If this itself seems excessive, well… hold the government's beer.

Davis claims that she told officers twice during the escort that she needed to use the restroom, but that they did not answer and continued walking her toward an SUV where Conley was waiting. Davis subsequently urinated in her clothing. Although their accounts differ in some respects, Conley and Davis agree that he knew she was wearing urine-soaked pants as he interrogated her in the restaurant parking lot. Davis claims that she was not allowed an opportunity to clean herself or change her clothing, despite communicating to Conley several times that she was “very uncomfortable.”

Conley is Norman Conley, the federal agent whose immunity remains stripped. For whatever reason, Conley appeared to believe it wasn't enough to have both the disputed property in hand and a fully-compliant suspect who had already informed NASA about her plans to sell them.

Conley then proceeded to question Davis for one-and-a-half to two hours, during which time Davis remained standing in the same place.

In urine-soaked pants, lest we forget.

Conley apparently felt he just wasn't threatening enough. He brought more muscle for the urine-soaked, Denny's parking lot interrogation of a 74-year-old woman.

[W]hile Conley questioned her, another officer wearing a flack jacket stood behind her and pushed her each time she shifted her weight or stepped backwards. During the questioning, Conley kept Davis’s purse and car keys and told her repeatedly that “they still really want to take you in,” and that she needed to give him more information before he could release her. She was kept from going to her car. At least ninety minutes had passed when Conley told Davis she was free to leave.

Here's the depressing coda:

After the sting operation was complete and NASA lunar experts were able to confirm the moon rock’s authenticity, Conley opened a full investigation. The investigation was closed when the U.S. Attorney in Orlando, Florida, formally declined to prosecute Davis. Davis’s son died seven months after the incident.

As the appeals court points out, Conley's own admissions cancel out his qualified immunity defense.

At the time of the detention, Conley was aware of several facts that color the reasonableness of his actions. First, Conley knew that Davis was a slight, elderly woman, who was then nearly seventy-five years old and less than five feet tall. Second, he knew that Davis lost control of her bladder during the search and was wearing visibly wet pants. Third, he knew that Davis and Cilley were unarmed and that the search warrant had been fully executed by the time Davis was escorted to the parking lot. Fourth, Conley knew that Davis had not concealed possession of the paperweights, but rather had reached out to NASA for help in selling the paperweights. Finally, because all but the first of the phone calls between Davis and “Jeff” were recorded, Conley knew the exact content of most of those conversations, including that Davis was experiencing financial distress as a result of having to raise grandchildren after her daughter died, her son was severely ill and required expensive medical care, and Davis needed a transplant. Those conversations also revealed Davis’s desire to sell the paperweights in a legal manner and her belief that she possessed them legally because they were a gift to her late husband.

If Conley didn't want to be held accountable for civil liberties violations, the court says he probably shouldn't have violated them so thoroughly.

Because the moon rock paperweight had been seized and both Davis and Cilley had already been searched for other weapons and contraband, Conley had no law enforcement interest in detaining Davis for two hours while she stood wearing urine-soaked pants in a restaurant’s parking lot during the lunch rush. This is precisely the type of “unusual case” involving “special circumstances” that leads us to conclude that a detention is unreasonable. Conley’s detention of Davis, an elderly woman, was unreasonably prolonged and unnecessarily degrading.

There are multiple ways this could have been handled and Conley chose the path most likely to result in a civil rights lawsuit. Maybe he thought Davis would never go so far as to sue him. Maybe this is just how Agent Conley handles everything: with as much force and intimidation as possible, even if nothing about the situation warrants it. Whatever the case, Conley will now have to face Davis' allegations in court, with no shield in front of him. Hopefully, he'll find the experience to be nearly as uncomfortable as what he put Joann Davis through.

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Two years ago, we wrote about the ridiculousness of police arresting reporters for reporting in Ferguson, Missouri, even though courts had told police to knock it off. Even more ridiculous is that those reporters were eventually charged, leading to a ridiculous settlement earlier this year.

And yet... arresting journalists for doing journalism continues to be a thing. As you probably know, there have been a bunch of protests in North Dakota lately concerning the Dakota Access Pipeline. Back in September, after covering the protests and having some of her videos of an attack on the protestors go viral, famed Democracy Now reporter Amy Goodman found out an arrest warrant had been issued for her. It's pretty clear that this arrest warrant was solely because of the coverage reflecting poorly on officials.

On Thursday, Goodman said that she'll surrender to authorities next week. As Democracy Now points out, the criminal complaint against her is so transparently unconstitutional and so transparently about intimidating reporters, that it actually notes that "Amy Goodman can be seen on the video identifying herself and interviewing protesters about their involvement in the protest." Right. That's called journalism. Goodman was basically arrested for doing journalism that the powers-that-be dislike.

Organizations that fight for free speech for journalists are condemning all of this. The Committee to Protect Journalists notes that this is "a transparent attempt to intimidate reporters from covering protests of significant public interest" while the Freedom of the Press Foundation is demanding that North Dakota drop the charges.

And they may want to seriously consider dropping the charges and walking away. After all, Goodman was also arrested for covering protests back in 2008, and that eventually ended with the police and local governments having to pay her $100,000 for violating her civil rights.

The Parma Civil Service Commission will conduct a written exam for basic Police Officer for the City of Parma to establish an eligibility list. The exam will be held on March 12, 2016. Applications are available February 14, 2016, through March 2, 2016. Parma is an equal opportunity employer but is strongly encouraging minorities to not apply.

The test will consist of a 15 question multiple choice definition test followed by a hearing test. Should you pass you will be accepted as an officer of the Parma Police Department.

Other postings not quite as charming, but definitely as fake, included announcements of the PD's new roving abortion van, a "Pedophile Reform event," plans to arrest anyone caught outside between noon and 9 pm, and a ban on feeding the homeless to better serve the city's plan to eradicate the problem through starvation.

Novak did copy the department's logo and the Facebook page did look similar… right up until readers read the posts, or noticed the fake department's motto: "We No Crime."

Rather than leave this in Facebook's hands (or just leave it alone altogether), the Parma police decided to greet the situation head on. It came up with a charge to use to go after Novak: use of a computer to "disrupt, interrupt or impair" police services. Then it went after him, mustering far more force than would seem to be necessary to handle a bogus Facebook page. Jacob Sullum of Reason recaps the stupidity.

Parma police...launched an investigation that involved at least seven officers, a subpoena and three search warrants, and a raid on Novak's apartment, during which the cops surprised his roommate on the toilet and seized two hard drives, a laptop, two tablets, two cellphones, and two video game systems. After his arrest on March 25, Novak spent four days in jail before he got out on bail, and then he had to report weekly to a probation officer if he wanted to keep his freedom.

The charge was obviously bogus. Statements made in defense of the PD's actions mainly focused on the derogatory nature of the posts. But very little was said about how a Facebook page that was up for less than two days and gathered only 300 followers made it more difficult for the police to continue servicing the community. It would seem the diversion of seven officers to a stupid investigation with obvious Constitutional implications would be far more disruptive to public service.

While the Parma police obviously found a judge willing to overlook their extremely questionable assertions when signing warrants, it had no similar luck when attempting to prosecute Novak.

Someone in the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office evidently had second thoughts about the case, because Novak was offered a plea deal under which the felony charge would have been reduced to an unspecified misdemeanor. Novak turned the offer down, by that point eager to have his day in court. By the time his trial rolled around, prosecutors had settled on the theory that Novak's Facebook gag had disrupted police services by generating phone calls to the police department—a grand total of 10 in 12 hours. The jury did not buy it, and everyone who was involved in the case should have known better than to let it get that far.

The end result is a lawsuit [PDF], which will definitely impair the community's trust in the police department. Novak alleges First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations -- all stemming from the warrants issued to the PD which, if determined to be bogus, support his Fourth and Fourteenth claims. As for the First Amendment, Novak's parody page was protected speech and the Parma police had no business using their powers to shut it down, much less arrest the page's creator.

As for the PD's supporting affidavits, they appear incredibly weak according to what's documented in the lawsuit. There was more made about the content of the page being "derogatory" than about the supposed criminal activity Novak (obviously didn't) engage in: disruption of government services.

That being said, it will be tough to prevent immunity from being awarded to most, if not all, of the participants in this censorious travesty. Unless the Parma police have specific guidance or training that encourages them to trample all over citizens' First Amendment rights, it's unlikely the allegations will survive a motion to dismiss. Then again, the PD didn't just tread lightly on Novak's free speech -- it steamrolled him with a trumped-up felony charge, seizure of all of his devices, and jailed him for four days. The city may find it more expedient to settle this quickly than take the chance of Novak prevailing completely.

The Parma PD should have limited itself to informing particularly stupid/gullible citizens that the parody page wasn't the real thing. Then it should have left it alone. Instead, it leveraged its power to avenge its hurt feelings, resulting in a tantrum that could prove to be very expensive.

from the arrested-for-not-doing-the-impossible dept

Back in December, we noted that, somewhat ridiculously, all of the super popular Whatsapp service (owned by Facebook) was blocked in Brazil, because Facebook refused to reveal information on Whatsapp users as part of a drug trafficking investigation. While the court only allowed the block to last for a little while, apparently things have escalated, with a senior Facebook exec now being arrested for failing to cooperate in this case:

Facebook’s vice president for Latin America has been arrested on his way to work in São Paulo, Brazil. Federal police picked up Diego Dzodan because Facebook disobeyed a court order to help investigators in a drug case that involves a WhatsApp user.

The arrest was made at the request of officials from the state of Sergipe, in Brazil’s north-east. In a statement, the federal police said Facebook/WhatsApp had repeatedly failed to comply with court orders relating to an organized crime and drug-trafficking investigation.

This reminds me, somewhat of the case where some Google execs were tried and convicted in Italy, because they didn't take down a video fast enough (the company took it down, just not fast enough). While the underlying issues are different, arresting execs of tech companies because you don't like the way they operate their business seems like a good way to make sure innovative internet services are not offered in your country at all. And, in this case, where Facebook relies on strong encryption in Whatsapp, it seems likely that the issue may be that it was impossible to comply with the court order in this case (though the full details are not yet known). Either way, arresting an exec over this seems extremely troubling -- especially in a country such as Brazil that has been trying to set itself up as a strong supporter of a free and open internet, and that had argued against surveillance.